JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar, has challenged the legal validity of FIR No. 274/2004 registered at Prevention of Corruption Police Station, Hanumangarh, CPS ACB Jaipur for offence under Sections 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and under Section 13(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act',for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a complaint was submitted before the competent authority of Kray & Vikray Sahakari Samiti, Hanumangarh with effect that in the year 2000, agricultural produce was purchased. The handling and transportation work was fixed as per the rates of the Marketing Committee and Truck Union. The rates also dealt with transportation of these goods when the truck union were functioning. They also dealt with handling and transportation rates when the truck union were not operating. In case the truck union were not operating, then tenders at the Samiti level had to be invited. However, an inquiry revealed that tender procedure was not followed. Instead the work was given to some particular contractor on a higher rate. Therefore, a loss of Rs. 4,67,844/- was caused to the State Exchequer. Initially, the FIR was registered against three persons, but not against the present petitioner. However, subsequently the name of the present petitioner, who was one of the contractors, has been added. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the legal validity of the FIR. 3. Mr. Vipiin Makkad, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Joint Registrar, Sahakari Samiti Bikaner Zone, Bikaner had conducted an inquiry about the handling and transportation work. According to his report, dated 23.4.2005, there was nothing amiss in the granting of the tender. Similarly, there is a communication of the Chief Secretary, Sahakarita Vibhag in which he has clearly stated that procedure adopted by the Kray & Vikray Samiti was strictly in accordance with the procedure laid down by RAJFED and no irregularity was found in the procedure followed by the Samiti. 4. The learned counsel is further claims that since the petitioner was the lowest bidder, therefore, the contract was given to him. According to the learned counsel, the documents mentioned above and the fact that petitioner was the lowest bidder, these facts not been considered by the investigating officer. Hence, the investigating officer is not carrying out fair and impartial investigation. Instead, he is pursuing the matter in order to arrest the petitioner. 5. According to the learned counsel, the documents mentioned above and the fact that petitioner was the lowest bidder, these facts not been considered by the investigating officer. Hence, the investigating officer is not carrying out fair and impartial investigation. Instead, he is pursuing the matter in order to arrest the petitioner. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor has frankly conceded, and in view of the Court rightly so, that the investigating officer is required to carry out a fair and impartial investigation. However, the learned public prosecutor has contended that the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the FIR is a narrow one . Thus, this Court should not quash the FIR. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and examined the record. 7. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction of this Court in interfering with the FIR is an extremely narrow one. Generally this Court does not interfere with the FIR, unless the case falls within the eight circumstances prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Chaudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 . Nonetheless, this Court expects the investigating officer to carry out an impartial investigation. He is legally bound to collect the evidence from the side of the complainant as well as from the side of the accused. He is required to weigh both the evidence and to decide whether to submit a charge-sheet or not. 8. In the present case, the petitioner claims to have certain documents which are in his favour. Therefore, the investigating officer is duty bound to consider these documents before proceedings with the filing of the charge-sheet. Hence, this Court directs the petitioner to submit the documents which are in his favour before the investigating officer within a period of one week. The investigating officer is excepted to consider these documents, and only thereafter to decide whether charge-sheet should be submitted against the petitioner or not. With these observations, this misc. petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of with above direction. *******